I think it was Kafka who said that the liberation of all revolutions ultimately results in its own aristocracy and the bureaucracy to defend it. See also George Orwell.
Me? I'll just have a drink and go find some kids doing capoeira to video. It's less depressing. :) -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > But I did think that part of the "equal time" has merits, because it > does ensure (in theory) that all sides can be heard, one of the > things that could happen very easily is that a canadaite has a lot of > money and "hires" people to create and flood the internet with their > vidoes, etc, I don't know....I'm just sick of it all, real issues and > real problems keep getting swept under in favor of retoric and people > buy into it, don't inform themselves or just give up....We need > leaders and people with vision and convection in all areas in > politics and until that happens.......SSDD..... > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > --- In [email protected], Peter Leppik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Traditionally, the legal rationale behind regulating broadcast TV > is >> that broadcast spectrum is a finite and very limited resource > which >> can only accommodate a relatively small number of channels (or > radio >> stations, for that matter). Hence the government has to step in > and >> make sure the available spectrum is used wisely and in the public >> interest--which it does by licensing chunks of the airwaves, > subject >> to certain conditions such as no obscenity, equal access, closed >> captioning, and technical rules like power limits and encoding >> standards. >> >> This is how the federal government can legally impose standards on >> broadcast stations which might otherwise run afoul of the first >> amendment. That's also why a lot of FCC rules don't apply to cable. >> >> It would be a huge stretch for the U.S. government to try to > impose >> old-media style regulation on Internet video. There's no licensed >> and limited resource, no presumption that internet "broadcasters" >> should operate in the public interest, and that pesky first > amendment >> problem. >> >> Heck, we can't even agree on the technical standards (i.e. flv vs. >> mov vs. wma). >> >> Captioning online video isn't a bad idea (if for no other reason > than >> it will increase your potential audience). But as a legal >> requirement? I doubt it, and if the U.S. government tried, it > would >> almost certainly fail any court challenge. Any sort of content >> fairness regulation (like the old equal time rule) is almost >> laughable under current legal standards as long as there's no > fraud >> involved. >> >> -Peter >> >> On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote: >> >> > Very true, Heath. And, I'm sure many of us had our Ayn Rand phase > and >> > then got over it ;) >> > >> > Still, what Jeff and I warning of is the slippery slope of > regulation. >> > >> > Take, for example, something far away from sex and politics. How > about >> > closed captioning for the hearing impaired? That's something > that's >> > hard to disagree with and that's why it's mandated across the >> > traditional TV spectrum >> > (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html). >> > >> > I've already read of disabled rights activists suggesting that > these >> > rules be applied to broadband video delivery. >> > >> > Now, I'm not suggesting that this would happen anytime soon, but > I am >> > suggesting that these issues be considered and pre-empted. And the >> > best way to avoid regulation is to self-regulate. >> > >> > Continuing on the closed-captioning example, Google Video > proactively >> > started adding CC to select content in September. That's a healthy >> > way to begin to address an issue like this. See: >> > http://video.google.com/videocaptioned >> > >> > Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video > for >> > John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye > as >> > an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the > next >> > day, I can't help but wonder if the online video "community" > should be >> > discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before > others >> > do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue >> > yesterday). >> > >> > Again, if issues like these are completely avoided "because it's > the >> > Internet", than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the > road by >> > incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
